Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that the integrity of the electoral system, and the prevention of fraud in postal voting, is more important than merely increasing turnout per se. With that in mind, will he ask the Electoral Commission to consider some of the Northern Ireland systems, whereby those who apply must do so in person or have a photograph or photographic document before obtaining a postal vote? Does he agree that that would reduce some fraud?

Tony Blair: We need to look carefully at those who are inciting such hatred in our community. That is something that we should consider over the next few months as we consider what the right response throughout the country to the attack is. As for the numbers of those who are engaged in this type of extremism, it is difficult to judge. I recall that a few months ago when I suggested that there might be several hundred such people that the security services were looking at, there were people rather questioning of that. It is difficult to be accurate. It is difficult as well when those who are engaged in these attacks were born and bred in this country. I chose my words carefully because I think that until we can provide some more definitive information as to who exactly was behind these attacks and their identity, it is as well to proceed with some caution. At present, I am not in a position to say definitively exactly who they were and whether they were people from this country or from outside.

Tony Blair: Again, let me thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his broad agreement with what we have tried to achieve and what we did achieve at the G8. This has been a day for consensus, but I am sure that we can find many areas on which to disagree if we think hard enough in the time to come.
	On aid and debt relief, in respect of the new money aspect, I am somewhat puzzled by some of the people who have been claiming that it is all recycled money. It is absolutely clear to me that the EU commitment is additional, the Japanese commitment is definitely additional, and as far as I am aware, Canada and the US are agreeing to double their aid from their present position. Although people keep saying that there is an issue about whether it is new money, it seems to me certainly true that it is, at least the vast bulk of it.
	In respect of timing, the aid and debt relief can start to flow straightaway—and should do so. Some aspects, such as the international finance facility, will take some time to establish, although in respect of the immunisation programme, for example, people are making a start now on financing in an innovative way. We can therefore start to see the benefits soon, and as the right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly says, it is absolutely urgent.
	In respect of trade, I would like the 2010 date to be reached in Hong Kong in December. Whether we can do so, I do not know. President Bush indicated that he would support 2010. I understand and accept that some people felt it was important that whatever dates were given were given in the context of the trade round and that we should not try to overlay a G8 process on a WTO process. I understand that, but it should not prevent us from having a forward position, which is absolutely necessary for the poorest countries. In the communiqué, we specifically indicated the importance of building the trade capacity of those countries, which in a sense is the same idea as is behind the advocacy fund.
	I totally agree with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says about Zimbabwe. Obviously, I discussed the matter with President Mbeki and Kofi Annan. There will be an opportunity when the report from the United Nations envoy is received by the UN Security Council.
	Let me be clear about what the problem always is in dealing with Zimbabwe. Although there is no dispute, in any quarter of the House, about the abhorrence that we feel for what is happening in Zimbabwe, once one gets past the expression of abhorrence, the question is: what do we do? The truth is that it is clear that the matter is best dealt with through the United Nations and through putting pressure on those countries in the immediate vicinity. We will continue to do that in any way that we can, and to get anything else that we can in terms of EU or UN measures or sanctions. The only way that the situation in Zimbabwe will come to an end, however, is through concerted international action, particularly from those countries neighbouring Zimbabwe. I confess that, although I suppose I understand what causes the reluctance, I cannot really excuse it, and I cannot understand why it should continue given the evidence of what has happened to what is, after all, potentially a wealthy country. That is the terrible tragedy. I think that we are agreed on that.
	I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what he said about climate change. He is absolutely right. Part of the trouble is that people will say we have not achieved what we never set out to achieve. There was no way in which we could negotiate new climate change agreements or targets here. We need to peel away some of the rhetoric on climate change. Let us be clear: there is no way in which climate change will ever be dealt with without agreement between the United States, China and India—and the European Union, obviously. Without those three countries it will not happen. In the years ahead, the huge consumers of energy will be China and India, and they are willing to join a dialogue, and so is America.
	People claim that it is wrong to say that technology is the answer. It is wrong to say that technology can do what is necessary by itself, but it is not wrong to say that technology is the essential part of the process. We need to develop a framework of incentives that allows the technologies to be developed. I hope that, through the dialogue, we will secure a report on the action plan from Gleneagles—that is obviously important—as well as exchanges of information leading eventually, I hope, to an agreement on technology transfer between the United States, the other wealthy countries, and China and India. China is building power stations at the rate of—I do not know—[Hon. Members: "One a week."] One a week. People can say what they like about the United States of America, but unless we can achieve a clean development of that technology it will not really make a difference.
	Russia has agreed to put the issue on the agenda for next year, but Japan has agreed to make it one of the centrepieces of its G8 summit in 2008. We need to develop the dialogue so that—this is crucial—when the Kyoto target period ends in 2012 the world is in agreement again, with radical measures that can be implemented to reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly.
	As for the funding of technologies, again I agree, but it is worth pointing out that the United States of America invests more in clean technology research and development than all the other countries in the world put together. We need to do more, but it is worth pointing that out.

Charles Kennedy: The Prime Minister is undoubtedly to be congratulated on what was, for the best and happiest of reasons as well as for the most dreadful, an extraordinary week. It was a considerable achievement to produce a coherent communiqué from the G8 members, given everything else that properly demanded his attention and presence.
	It has been said by many, but cannot be said often enough, that the approach of those making perfectly legitimate points about the G8—the Make Poverty History campaigners and those involved in Live 8 as well as the leaders themselves—was in such moral contrast to the scenes that we witnessed in London that it will stand the test of history. It will be seen as the way in which to go about things, both by decision-makers and by citizens around the globe seeking, properly and legitimately, to influence those decision-makers.
	Does the Prime Minister accept that the agreements reached by the G8 countries at Gleneagles will be judged not on the basis of promises made, but on the basis of the promises that are fulfilled in the months and years to come? The Prime Minister is absolutely right to say in the context of Africa—and we have supported him throughout—that many of the initiatives rely heavily on the willingness of African leaders to root out corruption and improve governance on their own continent and in their own countries. That is, of course, vital. As the G8 rolls on year after year, however, it is also important for us to have mechanisms ensuring that all its members fulfil the pledges into which they so willingly enter in a rather public way, as they did at the end of the Gleneagles summit by putting their signatures on the documents in front of the cameras.
	The Prime Minister said a few moments ago that so far as EU finances were concerned, British contributions definitely constituted new additional money, but perhaps he could be a bit more specific about the UK context. Will any new funds for the commitments given be drawn from the Department for International Development's existing budget, or will all such funds be supplementary to it? As the Prime Minister knows, this remains an abiding source of interest and legitimate concern to many of those who follow DFID's work in detail.
	I also welcome the $3 billion-worth of aid pledged to the Palestinian Authority. That far-sighted move is good news that surely must command not only cross-party support in our country, but broad international support. Were any conditions placed on this aid package so far as the Palestinian Authority are concerned, and was it possible—either formally or in the margins of the G8—to discuss advancing the road map and the way forward?
	On trade and the elimination of subsidies, how does the Prime Minister intend to progress that part of the agenda? Can he explain the disjunction between the agreement—entered into in principle at Gleneagles—to attack agricultural subsidies in the west, and the parallel universe of the simultaneous lack of progress in the WTO trade talks, which are under way in Geneva? The Prime Minister will accept that that disjunction presents a real difficulty.
	Finally, it is significant—indeed, it reflects the balance of the package that emerged from Gleneagles—that the section of the Prime Minister's statement devoted to the all-important issue of climate change was significantly shorter than the sections devoted to other headline matters discussed at the G8. Does he agree—he has more than alluded to this point this afternoon—that the Gleneagles agreements on climate change, in so far as they exist, constitute little more than treading water, and that we will not achieve real success until we have a concrete, target-based, country-based successor to the Kyoto process? He spoke of a pathway and the leader of the Conservatives spoke of impetus and dialogue—the other buzzwords of communiqués and statements during, and concerning, the summit. Were any specific steps actually agreed at Gleneagles to reduce emissions, because that is the bottom line?
	Earlier in the year, the Prime Minister set out three tests for the success of his G8 presidency—and fairly so—in addressing climate change: agreement on the basic science; agreement on the process to speed up provision of the technology necessary to meet the threat; and engagement with other countries with growing energy needs, China and India being the most obvious and notable examples. He has mentioned this issue already, but now that he has got through this amazing week, culminating in the summit's conclusion, it would be interesting to hear the answer to the following question, which I ask in no sense pejoratively. Following Gleneagles and thus far into his presidency, to what extent has he been able to meet the objective tests that he set himself, and does he agree that there is much further to go on climate change? As long as he keeps pressing that case, he deserves practical and political support.

Tony Blair: First, the right hon. Gentleman is right: the promises have got to be fulfilled. On the other hand, there is evidence that such measures are already working. For example, several hundred thousand people are getting relief from HIV/AIDS through the drugs currently going in. Such things can be done, that is for sure. There are countries that, as a result of debt relief, have been able to put their children into primary school education for the first time. Also represented at Gleneagles were the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the African Union, so there will be a lot of follow through. September's UN millennium summit will also focus greatly on these issues.
	On the new money, so far as we are concerned, the budget for the Department for International Development is rising. We are putting it up every year—it has risen dramatically—and there is the international finance facility as well. For obvious reasons, because of what happened on Thursday, the announcement by Japan's Prime Minister Koizumi of $10 billion extra over the next five years is significant and would not have happened but for the focus of the G8 at that moment. I am not saying that it would not have been done later, but it was significant that it came then.
	I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on the Palestinian Authority. Disengagement will be very difficult for Israel, but it is important that there is support for the Palestinian Authority so that it can begin the basic structures of statehood after disengagement. We can then take that further, something I am sure President Bush is determined to do. We discussed the issue at length at Gleneagles.
	On trade, I have given the date of 2010. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was a difference between what happened at Gleneagles and what is happening with the WTO, but that is not entirely fair. It is important to realise that what is holding up the WTO is not simply agricultural subsidies—on the contrary, we think that we can get agreement on those—and not simply G8 countries. It is important that we make sure that other countries recognise that they have a responsibility for this, not simply the G8. The head of the WTO was at Gleneagles and briefed us on the obstacles, which were not primarily G8 countries. It is important, of course, that we make a difference.
	On climate change, the right hon. Gentleman was wrong to say that we were simply treading water. I am not overselling this, but the position of the international community was that there was no agreement on the science, no agreement on the need to take action to cut greenhouse gas emissions, no agreement that we needed to act with urgency and no agreement on a process for going forward. The international community was, I am afraid, sundered on this issue.
	It is true that we have not made a new agreement—the G8 was never going to be able to do that—but we should refer to the three things to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded. We have no agreement on the basic science, but there is agreement for the first time that climate change is a reason for tackling the issue, as well as energy security and supply. There has been some coming together on that.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about action, and there is a plan of action, with measures concerning industry and energy efficiency. That is precisely the action to speed up the technology. Most important, there is an agreement on process. Let us be clear; there is a weakness with Kyoto. We support Kyoto and will meet our Kyoto targets; I am not sure how many other countries will. But the basic issue is the concern that as China, in particular, and India emerge strongly as economies, they will be competing with us economically. We must make sure that we bind them into the process, and they have agreed to be bound in.
	Part of America's concern—we accept that there have been disagreements over Kyoto and over the science—is that other countries who have been happy to hide behind America in these matters should now share in the process. As those economies emerge and become immensely strong and powerful, there must be some common sharing of the problem. We are prepared to share the technology, which was one of the important things to come out of Gleneagles. But a situation in which there were tough targets on the developed world and no obligations on the developing world would be difficult to sell to our own people here. That is why I say that this is a pathway to a fresh agreement after Kyoto that will take us further than the right hon. Gentleman thought.

Tony Baldry: On trade, President Bush has made it clear that he is prepared to reduce agricultural subsidies if the European Union also does so. What does the Prime Minister think about the French position on this matter? If the EU negotiates as one in respect the WTO, we may move forward only at the slowest pace, so has the Prime Minister been able to make any progress with respect to the French position on this matter?

Tony Blair: —with property rights, and so on. That is very important. The lessons of what countries need to do to attract the right levels of private sector investment and so on are not hard to describe, even if it can be difficult to do. We can show how good governance has its own financial reward; without a shadow of a doubt, that is true. The other thing we can do, which we are working on with business, is the so-called extractive industries transparency initiative, which is to make sure that companies that pay money are open and transparent about the money so that we can root out the corruption that has bedevilled Africa for so long and that is so deeply unfair to its people. If we started to get the right systems of governance in place, the other thing that would happen is that the younger generation of highly talented Africans would want to stay to engage in the politics of their own country, which is tremendously important. Far too often, they have seen no future in that, and although international institutions benefit enormously from them, it would be better for their own countries if they were there.

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is right. It is inspiring to see how many schools have taken the issues up. Obviously people were watching Live8 in large numbers because of the strength of the show, but it was clearly also a demonstration of support for certain ideals. I know, from the massive correspondence with schools up and down the country and in different parts of the world, that something has been generated that is very positive for the future.

Tony Blair: I would have preferred the date to be in the communiqué, although—to be fair—I understand why other countries said that that was not appropriate, that the WTO was the right place for that and that it should happen in Hong Kong. Well, let us ensure that it does happen there. As for the CAP, over the longer term it is important that we move the European budget away from the irrational amount of support for agriculture. It is important also to realise that the difficulties that have been mentioned over the past few days are not simply in respect of Europe, nor in respect of Europe and America.

Michael Clapham: May I congratulate my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor on the work that they have done, especially on Africa and trade? Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about the international financing arrangement? Is it intended that the promises that have been given for the future will be achieved more quickly through that arrangement? The international financing arrangement should mean that a uniformity of resource is available to bring about the changes my right hon. Friend intends much more quickly. Finally, can my right hon. Friend say whether the issue of the UN environmental programme was discussed, or is that an issue for the WTO agenda?

Peter Ainsworth: The Prime Minister is to be warmly congratulated on having the courage to put climate change among his key issues. Nobody ever said that tackling climate change internationally would be an easy job, and I also understand that the key final negotiations took place on a particularly difficult day. However, it is impossible to escape the conclusion that the result of the climate change negotiations is a bitter disappointment. Does the Prime Minister accept that if we are to tackle climate change we need an international coalition of the willing, and that if the United States is not prepared to be willing he may need to take a lead by building a consensus with other countries that are prepared to get on board? I am thinking in particular of India, China, Brazil and other emerging economies. Are there any circumstances in which he would envisage taking matters forward, perhaps on a temporary basis, without the United States?

Mark Durkan: The Prime Minister indicated that he sometimes wonders where questions about whether figures are being recycled and whether debt relief comes out of aid budgets come from. I reassure him that although such questions may be asked often, they are not being asked against him. They arise not from unworthy cynicism but from a healthy scepticism that has, unfortunately, been born of much past experience of targets set and of commitments and promises made but not fulfilled. That is why people want to know what is happening, not just for themselves as interested citizens, but because they want to stand by our pledge to fellow world citizens in Africa.
	I join other Members in applauding all the efforts of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development in taking the issue forward. Will the Prime Minister assure us that his statement and the communiqué on Friday are merely punctuation marks in a story that will continue? Indeed, he has indicated that he will be taking the cause further during the EU presidency and in the trade round.
	In the context of the request of the Leader of the Opposition that the Prime Minister examine alternatives to the advocacy fund, will the Prime Minister consider whether, in the build-up to the trade round, we could try to engineer an Africa impact assessment mechanism? That would mean that none of the developed nations in the world trade negotiations could ask for or agree to anything unless it was Africa-proofed.

Tony Blair: I am sure that will be part of the discussions in the WTO round. I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks in respect of myself and the Chancellor and the International Development Secretary who, as I said in my statement, have done an immense amount to bring the situation about.
	I do not take the healthy scepticism personally in any way. It is sensible for people to be sceptical, but it is also sensible that they recognise that, with the support they have mobilised, we now have the opportunity truly to make a difference, and I think it is possible to do so.

Tony Blair: If we deliver on what has been promised, yes, we can say that the millennium development goals will be met; but, obviously, we have got to deliver on it. We have got to carry it through and see it through, and so have the African countries got to deliver on their part of it as well. I emphasise, yet again, the importance of conflict resolution—the urgent necessity of establishing a standby African force, large enough to go into any situation of conflict. We can see dramatically the importance of that from what is happening in Sudan, where there are now about 8,000 peacekeepers, but more are needed. If there was a 20,000 force able to move into those situations, it would make a tremendous difference. Again, whatever aid is put in, even whatever attempts by Governments are made to strengthen the systems of governance in those countries, if there are conflicts that ravage an entire country, all the progress is set back immediately.

Pete Wishart: Does the Prime Minister fully understand the sense of disappointment felt by many non-governmental organisations, aid agencies and many campaigners who felt that he and other G8 leaders would be truly brave in tackling African poverty at the summit? In marks out of 10, how close does he think he and the G8 summit came to meeting the demands of the Make Poverty History campaign?

'In section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c.60) (arrest without warrant by persons other than constables) after subsection (4) add—
	"(5) This section does not apply in relation to an offence under Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986.".'. —[Paul Goggins.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Paul Goggins: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The new clause will give the reassurance that he suggests. He cited the very different legislation in Victoria state, Australia, under which people report complaints to the Equal Opportunities Commission. However, a different system will apply here. The new clause reassures the preachers who my hon. Friend mentioned. It will send out the clear message that there can be no messing about. People will not have the power to make a citizen's arrest for the offence because that will be entirely a matter for the police—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) want me to give way?

Dominic Grieve: I thank the Minister for his comments. I am happy to accept new clause 3 in substitution for amendment No. 10. I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman that, as so often happens when Government draftsmen lay their hands on the idea of others, the new clause reads much more happily than the amendment could ever do. I rejoice that the argument that I advanced in Committee, which I recollect was qualified by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Ms Thornberry) as barmy, appears to have received a sympathetic response from the Government.
	The position is simple. The Bill, which criminalises incitement to religious hatred, leaves open the possibility that individuals could turn up at a public meeting, listen to a speaker's words and conclude that they were infringing the law. Because there would not be a police officer present, under the new rules on the powers of citizen's arrest they could mount the platform and say in colloquial terms, "You're nicked". They could then summon the police to take that individual away, regardless of the fact that, as the Minister has often told the House, few prosecutions are anticipated under the provision.
	That highlights another aspect of the Bill, to which we shall doubtless return later today. Its scope is uncertain and it is easy for someone to conclude from its wording that there has been an infringement that would justify an arrest. Even though the Attorney-General may decide that he does not wish to prosecute the matter, there would be no redress for the person who had been arrested, as those who had arrested him could argue that, under the Bill, they had a reasonable suspicion that an offence had been committed.
	A greater recipe for community strife could not be imagined. I was reassured that I was not barmy when the week before last I met some police officers in my locality who are policing a multicultural and multi-faith area. I asked them whether they were aware that the provision was going to be introduced and what they thought about it. When they learned what was likely to happen in their locality their reaction was one of the utmost horror. There are groups in the area that they police that are on the look-out for transgressions by other religious groups or, indeed, by individuals within a religious group. Recently, for instance, one group within a religion had gone to a car park to seize religious items from another group because they believed that those items were about to be misused. The Government are therefore wise to heed my request. I was seriously concerned about the issue, so I thank the Minister for taking it on board.
	The provision has been extended to cover racial hatred. I accept the Minister's reasons for doing so, but I cannot think of a circumstance, even in relation to racial hatred, where one would wish to see a citizen's arrest carried out in this fashion. In Committee, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Malik) said that he could not think of a single instance in which it had been a problem in the past 20 years. That is because it has never happened, but it could well happen in future.
	I am grateful to the Minister, and I will not take up any more of the House's time. I am delighted to be able to tell the Minister that we endorse wholeheartedly the Government new clause even though, I am afraid, we are most unlikely to endorse wholeheartedly the rest of the Bill.

Alistair Carmichael: I shall be brief because the main points have been made by the Minister and by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). We, too, are minded to support the Government new clause. I am grateful to the Minister for giving the matter careful consideration and for reintroducing the provision in its current form. It would be interesting to know whether there is a wider departmental view about the prudence of certain measures extending citizen's arrest in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, or whether that is limited to this narrow application. However, it would be churlish not to accept the shift by the Government. We are grateful to the Minister and we are pleased to support him.

Dominic Grieve: My right hon. and learned Friend is right. In Committee, we spent much time considering intent. If he examines some of the other amendments that I have tabled, especially amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, he will realise that leaving out the word "religious" would confine the offence of inciting religious hatred to one of specific intent and remove it from the second category, which is sometimes described as the "likely limb". I am afraid that that is not immediately clear, but that alternative approach might commend itself to hon. Members.
	I must however be realistic. I have to accept, in the light of what happened in Committee, that the Government vigorously reject the approach. They were committed to maintaining the duality of incitement to racial and religious hatred, including the possibility that the offence could be committed not only with but without specific intent, if the threatening, insulting or abusive words were likely to be heard by people in whom they were likely to stir up religious hatred. I stress to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that that is one of the reasons for my fundamental objection to the Bill.
	Given that we are on Report and I am trying to tempt the Government, however, I am at least willing to try to encourage them to consider new clause 2 and provide some greater protection. If they did that, I would not jump up and down and say that the Bill was acceptable but it must get through not only this place but another place. The prospect of its getting though another place in its current form is limited. Given that I have always attempted to proceed by argument, not simply by confrontation, I tabled new clause 2 because it provides at least a measure of definition. Unless we provide that the words can be construed as constituting justification for violence, the Bill gives complete protection, whether there was specific intent or not.

Dominic Grieve: I shall do so briefly and shortly.
	In the meantime, new clause 2 does not remove the limb that requires specific intent. It simply makes clear that, irrespective of whether there is specific intent, the words, speech or expression must be
	"such as to constitute a justification for violent acts".
	It has the merit that, once introduced as a concept, many things that people say about others, including things that may be offensive, certainly insulting, but probably not threatening—threats in discourse have little place in a democratic society—would be defused. In Committee, we worried especially about insulting terms.
	My impression from contact with many members of secular and religious groups who have deep anxiety about the Bill—about 2,000 of them, in an impressive gathering, remarkable for its diversity, were demonstrating outside the House this afternoon—is that they would at least be reassured that their ability to express their dislike of other people's beliefs or their views on the morality of others would be protected, even if some people might find it insulting and even if some idiot elsewhere in the country seized on it as a justification for doing something that the ordinary words used could not possibly justify.
	I challenge the Under-Secretary to explain why new clause 2 is unacceptable. It makes some progress towards achieving a measure of greater agreement about how to include safeguards in the Bill.

Dominic Grieve: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a very good point. If the Minister were to come to the Dispatch Box and suggest that that might be a way to proceed, I would welcome it. The fact that we are able to have this kind of debate on Report is extremely useful, because when the Bill goes to another place, the record of these proceedings will doubtless be read, and people will be able to see that that suggestion represents another approach to the problem. I tabled quite a few amendments in Committee to try to find a way around this problem. They were rejected, however. On Report, therefore, I wanted to confine myself to essentials. My right hon. and learned Friend is right, however, that that might be a better approach, and that a definition of hatred could be extremely helpful. Anyone who looks in the dictionary can see that the term is not well defined, which has been one of the anxieties throughout our consideration of this legislation.

Ian Paisley: On Second Reading, I asked the Home Secretary a question concerning statements in the Bible and in the confessions of faith of all the Churches telling against various other beliefs. I asked:
	"Is he telling us that those statements will be deemed to be not statements of hatred, but the personal confessions of those Churches?
	The House begins its sittings with a prayer from the Book of Common Prayer. Parts of the Book of Common Prayer, such as the 39 Articles, have strong statements to make. Would those statements be considered as an incitement to hatred?"—[Official Report, 21 June 2005; Vol. 435, c.671.]
	He said: "No, they would not." Surely the way to safeguard that in the Bill would be to accept the hon. Gentleman's new clause, but there is nothing in the Bill to safeguard the promise made. The Minister replying to the debate knows well that one cannot go into a court and say, "When the Bill passed through the House of Commons the Minister said this", for the judge would laugh and say, "Sit down".

Dominic Grieve: I appreciate that we are dealing with religious hatred. We should bear in mind, however, that 200 years ago those in this Chamber—or rather down the Corridor, where the Chamber was then—were living in a society in which, notwithstanding the tolerance accorded to some dissenters and indeed to small Jewish minorities, there was a consensus, institutionalised by Parliament, that certain Christian beliefs contained in the 39 Articles of religion must be imposed for the sake of social conformity, and to maintain the body politic. That is the state in which our country then was.
	Over the last 200 years we have seen a dramatic change, not just in the extent of the tolerance accorded to others who wish to practise other religious beliefs. The country is in the process of a massive transformation: multiculturalism and religious views are important not just to small minority groups, but to substantial sections of society. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that in those circumstances I think it is particularly important for freedom of discourse to be maintained, including freedom to criticise in vehement terms. We must all get used to that. If we do not, we shall be moving in the wrong direction.

Dominic Grieve: My right hon. and learned Friend has repeated an important point to which I hope that the Government will respond, elsewhere if not here.
	There is a philosophical argument that because racial characteristics are immutable, allowing people to express hatred based simply on race is so peculiar and irrational that it may be proper to curb it. That, I think, is why it was curbed in the racial hatred clauses of the Public Order Act 1986. So while I very much agree with my right hon. and learned Friend about the application of this argument to religion, I should want to think very carefully about rowing back from the 1986 Act, which was framed to protect people on the basis of their racial identity. That could be argued to be a retrograde step; however, I hope that this issue can be looked at elsewhere.
	I hope that the Minister will consider the new clause and related amendments carefully. I point out now, should I be unable to do so later, that I will put my name to, and view with great sympathy, new schedule 1.

Tony Wright: Yes, and as we all know this is the important distinction. We are at one on the issues of incitement and violence, but we are not at one on where to draw the distinction between beliefs and believers. We keep coming back to this issue from many different directions, but it is fundamental to the Bill. Many of us are very keen to respond to the argument that we need to stop members of certain groups being picked on. We do not like people being picked on, and there is a lot of evidence to suggest that certain members of religious communities are being picked on not for their religion, but simply because of whom they are. So we respond very positively to the need to protect people against being picked on, which is why I approach this argument in a sympathetic spirit. However, at the same time, I want people to be able to pick on other people's beliefs. That presents us with a difficulty. How can we protect the right of people to pick on other people's beliefs, while not picking on such people simply because they belong to a religious group?

Patrick Cormack: Is it not also equally important that people have the opportunity robustly to express their beliefs?

Tony Wright: Indeed it is, and I take that to be part of the same point.
	So there is a balancing act that we want to perform, but not because some of us are on the side of free speech and others are on the side of protection. Most of us want both to protect and to guarantee free speech; we are simply trying to find the correct balance.

Alistair Carmichael: There is no single answer to that question. There are certainly clear areas where it is in public policy interest that we should prevent hatred and racial hatred is now accepted as being one of the most important areas.Our view is that we do not think that the creation of the new offence of religious hatred is within the ambit of public policy or what is desirable under it.

Alistair Carmichael: That is an interesting point of view, and if we were starting with a blank sheet of paper I would be minded to explore it with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am mindful that we are beyond Second Reading and I do not want to pursue this at too much length because we are where we are. We have the now-accepted position in law of the illegality of inciting somebody to stir up racial hatred. The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that it would be preferable to make hatred leading to some further unlawful act an offence. It is an interesting discussion, but the debate has moved on beyond that.
	New schedule 1 is essentially the crux of the Bill and is about trying to make the Bill workable. It would be helpful to read it briefly into the record. It brings with it a definition of racial hatred, which it seeks to define as hatred
	"against a racial group, of persons defined by reference (whether directly or indirectly) to colour, race, nationality, (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins ('a racial group')."
	It goes on to say that, in the section,
	"'an indirect reference' means a reference to religion or religious belief or to a person's membership or presumed membership of a religious group as a pretext for stirring up racial hatred against a racial group . . . 'religious group' means a group of persons defined by reference to religion or religious belief."
	It is our view that that brings with it the answer to the problem that the Government have identified. I am not entirely persuaded that the problem is more real than apparent, but to take them at face value—to accept that they are acting in good faith—what we have here is a fairly elegant expression of the law as it currently stands.
	The provision would put beyond doubt the fact that a Muslim—as distinct from a Jew or a Sikh, who has the benefit of coverage in relation to racial hatred or on the basis of mono-ethnicity—would be covered in circumstances where hatred was intentionally racially motivated. I am inclined to say that that is already the case. It certainly seems to be the view of a number of commentators who are better qualified in law than me, including my noble and learned Friend Lord Lester. I hope that the Minister will reconsider his somewhat inappropriate remarks about the motivations of Lord Lester. In the first sitting in Committee, the Minister suggested that my noble and learned Friend
	"understands precisely that it would not work in practice and that is why he makes the proposal."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 28 June 2005; c. 27.]
	I have to say that that was one of the few occasions on which the Minister fell below the standard that we usually expect of him in Committee. Frankly, it was an unworthy remark about someone with the pedigree of my noble and learned Friend. I hope that the Minister will feel that it is possible to be a little more generous about him today.

Alistair Carmichael: If the hon. Gentleman is talking about people who are being attacked on a theological or doctrinal basis, rather than as a proxy for race, I believe that that is perfectly proper. I do not believe that the law should protect people from attacks on either theological or doctrinal bases. Furthermore, if it is anything other than that, I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that it would be covered by the terms of the new schedule, which I invite the hon. Gentleman to reflect on more closely and carefully.
	Our other concern is that the Government have adopted a very narrow approach to the Bill. If we are to deal effectively with religious hatred, we cannot deal with it in isolation. We have to recognise that the reform of the law of blasphemy is long overdue. That law, which provides protection only to people in the Church of England rather than Christians as a whole, is a law that has long since outlived any useful purpose that it may ever have had. In that regard, I want to mention amendment No. 12, which is proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). He has tabled the provision in a personal capacity, but I want to make it clear that I have absolutely no difficulty in supporting it and that I commend my hon. Friend for introducing it.
	The other important element of the new schedule is what I would call the free-speech rider in paragraph (3), which suggests that
	"It shall not be an offence under this section if the activity consists of . . . criticising the beliefs, teachings or practices of a religion or its followers, for example, by claiming that they are false or harmful; . . . proselytising one's own religion or urging followers of a different religion to cease practicing theirs; . . . expressing irreverent comedic comments about religion or belief; its worship, teaching, practice or observance; . . . expressing antipathy or dislike of particular religions or their adherents."
	A significant distinction may be drawn between that free-speech rider and the one in new clause 2, proposed by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. My provision is about protection of free speech, whereas the hon. Gentleman invites us to accept a condemnation of speech that is used to justify violence. I wonder if the hon. Gentleman might have been better advised to finish his new clause after the words
	"belief or lack of religious belief".
	It would then read simply:
	"Nothing in Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986 . . . shall be read or given effect in a way which restricts or prohibits freedom of speech or expression on any matter of religious belief or lack of religious belief".
	Thereafter, the operation of the new clause becomes problematic. I appreciate why he brought it forward and I am broadly with him, but I see some difficulties with the wording.

Peter Soulsby: The point made in Committee that still applies now is that it is not just a question of giving protection to white Muslims. There are many Muslims in many mosques, just as there are many Christians in many churches: people from many different racial backgrounds are represented. Somalis, Pakistanis, Kosovans, Indians, Bangladeshis, people from Saudi Arabia and from many other countries are represented in mosques in this country. The point of new schedule 1 is that it would enable those who wished to whip up hatred against any of those people in a particular mosque—as, indeed, in a particular church, which may have many different ethnic and racial groups present— to do so. It would provide the perfect excuse for someone to point to a mosque and say, "Look, there are many different racial groups there and I am not, of course, whipping up hatred against any of those particular groups because—

Alistair Carmichael: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that I get the hon. Gentleman's drift. He has to have regard to the very wide terms in which racial hatred is defined in paragraph 1 of the new schedule, which would catch most of the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman mentions.

Chris Bryant: I have to say that I do not think that that is controversial at all. Men and women are equal. They should be equal under the law and, for that matter, in religion. We look forward to women being ordained as bishops and the Church agreeing to that. This, I know, strays some considerable way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from the purpose of the Bill and the amendments before us.
	I start from the fundamental belief that freedom of speech and freedom of religion are absolutely intrinsic to the democracy in which we all want to live. I want to live in a society in which nobody feels cowed or timid in the expression of their freedom of speech or their freedom of religion. One of the points of debate here is that many of us on the Labour Benches perceive that not everybody in this country equally enjoys the right to express their religious belief, and to join in that belief by association with others. That is the problem that we are essentially trying to address.
	We believe that there is an injustice in the law as drafted, which allows protection, as many Members have mentioned, by race and, therefore sort of, by proxy, allows for those whose race and religion so overlap that the overlap is almost complete. Therefore, Hindus and Jews are allowed protection under the law—

Chris Bryant: Well, I do not think that that example entirely falls within the ambit of the Bill, and it should not do so. The point was raised earlier that many would debate whether someone's sexuality is a fixed or chosen aspect of their life. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon shrugs his shoulders, but that is a material consideration because many people have advanced the argument that the law is not good enough because one does not choose one's race but one does choose one's religion. The point that many Labour Members would make is that the percentage of people who actively choose their religion is remarkably small. One of my hon. Friends pointed out earlier that people can change their religion, but I still believe that just as it is wrong to judge somebody on the basis of the colour of their skin or their gender—or, for that matter, their sexuality—it is wrong and just as irrational to judge somebody, or think of them as a lesser person, on the basis of their religion.

Evan Harris: I support new schedule 1 and amendment No. 1, the paving amendment, which we have indicated that we would want to see pressed to a Division unless the Minister says that he is prepared to accept it. I hope that there will be a vote on amendment No. 1.
	Given what has been said by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), it is important to recognise that there is little difference in motivation between many of us on both sides of the House, including those Labour Members, who have a proud history of seeking to combat racial discrimination and incitement to racial hatred. I understand that some Labour Members represent constituencies where they see similar things happening in the name of religion and that, therefore, there is a need to tackle the problem. I recognise that their motivation, and that of the Government, is in this respect entirely legitimate.
	I hope that it is understood, when choosing between the Government's form of the Bill and the form of the Bill that would be established by the introduction of new schedule 1 and the consequential amendments, that we are talking about a difference in the way of dealing with the matter and how we find the balance between tackling the mischief that is abroad in society—attacking individuals and groups of individuals, and inciting hatred against them on the one hand, and the need to protect freedom of expression from the criminal law and from investigation and near prosecution by the prosecuting authorities and the police, and from the need to self-censor to a far greater degree than is currently the case.
	I hope that I pass what I think should be the Gorton test. On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) made a point that, no doubt from his perspective, he felt was fair. He said:
	"The problem with interventions by Conservative Members is they are totally unrepresentative of the population as a whole in that hardly any of them are open to the kind of humiliation that many members of our communities are open to. If they were, they would not be criticising this legislation."—[Official Report; 21 June 2005, vol. 435, col. 674.]
	I have been subject to anti-Semitic attack, physical and verbal. Given what the hon. Member for Walsall, North has said, I should point out that for 20 years, if not longer, I have subscribed to "Searchlight", a magazine that has kept these matters afloat through the difficult eras and the healthy eras. I hope that Labour Members do not take the view that there may be some on the Opposition Benches—I do not make the case but it has been made by others—who do not feel strongly about the issues of hatred that we have been discussing. That does not apply to those who support new schedule 1 as a different way of dealing with these matters.
	I thought that it would be useful, in support of the new schedule, to consider the record of debates in the House to identify whether there is misunderstanding of the Bill, which is one of the fears that many of us have. Many of those who support the Bill, as opposed to the new schedule, perhaps, believe that it is doing something that it is not doing. I would argue that there are other laws that deal with the problems that they have identified. Perhaps, there is the problem that the new schedule—the Lester amendment—does not tackle the problems. It is important that we consider what has been said, especially by Labour Members, although I do not necessarily allege that all such Members misunderstand these matters or that there is misunderstanding elsewhere.
	The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton referred in an intervention to
	"the case of Mrs. Shahzada, a constituent of mine who went to a shop in central Manchester soon after 9/11. She wears a veil over her face, and the shopkeeper refused to serve her because she was, to his perception, a Muslim. That was hatred against an individual, not a criticism of Islam."—[Official Report; 21 June 2005, vol. 435, col. 674.]
	That was discrimination. The Equality Bill, which is in the House of Lords, will deal with that discrimination. Whether it was motivated by hatred is immaterial. It should be unlawful and the Liberal Democrats—particularly Lord Lester—have argued that that sort of discrimination should have been outlawed some time ago. Measures to deal with that were proposed, but they were opposed by the Government.
	In a further intervention on the Home Secretary the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) referred to the play "Behzti". The hon. Lady urged the Home Secretary to
	"remind the House that if that play attacks any community, it is the Sikh community, which is of course already covered by existing law, as is the Jewish community."—[Official Report; 21 July 2005, vol. 345, col. 674.]
	That misunderstands the fact and the circumstances of the play, even if we accept that Jews and Sikhs are somehow already protected from incitement to religious hatred, which they are not. There is no such offence as religious hatred, and that did not touch on the "Behzti" offence.
	The Government's argument in favour of their legislation and against new schedule 1, is that there is a loophole. The discussion has taken place and it seems strange that it has not been understood. Current law protects certain people from incitement to racial hatred. That is not incitement to religious hatred. I can read the definition of racial hatred in the Public Order Act 1986. It talks about nationality, culture, race and so forth. Case law has stated that, for the sake of argument, if someone is being anti-Semitic, they will therefore be covered, potentially, by incitement to racial hatred. Case law does not state that if the attack is solely doctrinal and solely theological, Jews and Sikhs will be protected on the basis of incitement to religious hatred. There is no such offence.
	If we are worried about the loophole or the unfairness in the practice of the law, we need to determine whether, if there is incitement to racial hatred directed against a group of Muslims, they would be covered. At best, it could be argued that the law is unclear, although I understand that there is a pending prosecution in circumstances that might fit that case. However, the Lester amendment makes the issue explicit so that it would be seen clearly by both the perpetrators and the victims that they are protected and that if racists seek to hide behind words like "Muslims" instead of words such as "Pakis", which is what they are said to be doing—I have no doubt that they are—that would be covered. I would argue that that deals with the current problem. I say that from the perception of someone who finds such racial attacks to be anathema.
	I hope that that is accepted by those on the Government Benches, including Ministers, who are careful about their words. When they talk about the loophole, they say that Jews and Sikhs are protected against hatred. They know that they cannot say that they are protected against religious hatred. They are not, because such an offence does not exist. Ministers know also that if Jews and Sikhs are protected against racial hatred, which is what they are protected against as a group, that will open the door to easier understanding of what the Lester amendment seeks to do. The Minister has to explain and accept—I hope that he will—that Jews and Sikhs are not protected against incitement to religious hatred and that that understanding has not been grasped by many Members of this place, including those who have contributed to the debate.
	In the infamous column 674 of Hansard, the hon. Member for Hove (Ms Barlow) raises the question of homosexuality and whether incitement to hatred on the basis of homosexuality should be covered. That was a point made in an intervention by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). On two bases I would argue that there is a stronger case for introducing a law against incitement to homophobic hatred. First, homosexuality is innate and not chosen and secondly there is far more of such hatred going on. It is second only to incitement to religious hatred, which is not racial hatred. I cannot understand why, if the Government are seeking to deal with a social problem and incitement to hatred, they have not dealt with homosexuality either at the same time or before.
	On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) expressed concern that hatred was not defined closely enough. At column 677, he said to the Home Secretary:
	"Will my right hon. Friend make sure that the element of hatred is clearly defined when the Bill is considered in Committee? That will reassure people with genuine concerns, as the Bill must be tightly drawn to ensure that people retain total freedom of speech in respect of these matters."
	The Home Secretary replied:
	"I am happy to give the commitment that my hon. Friend seeks. In Committee, we will look at any proposal aimed at providing a tighter definition of hatred in the Bill".—[Official Report, 21 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 677.]
	The hon. Member for Loughborough was seeking a commitment to make a better definition, not to look at a proposal. However, I understand that there were no such amendments in Committee. Hatred was not defined more closely as requested, so another group in the House will not have gained reassurance.
	The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Malik) made what everyone acknowledges was an impressive maiden speech—because it was a maiden speech, no one sought to intervene—in which he made the case for new schedule 1 and the Lester amendment. He said that at school he was beaten up by a gang of skinheads because, to use his words,
	"we were all seen as 'Pakis' and we were all fair game."
	He went on to say that the world has changed, and if he
	"was surrounded by a gang of 20 thugs from Combat 18 telling me that I am going to die, it is because I am a Muslim." —[Official Report, 21 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 703.]
	I do not believe that Combat 18, the vile British National party or the National Front, and their particularly odious band of followers are making a theological point when they attack Muslims, particularly those who appear to them to be members of a racial group. Attacking and harassment are not the subject of the Bill, but there is no doubt that that is a racial offence. I find it hard to understand why the hon. Gentleman, who clearly has great insight into the situation, should seek to argue that the offence is based on incitement to religious hatred.
	The right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), who did not accept interventions—certainly not from me—gave an example at column 709 which demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the Bill and of the alternative proposed in new schedule 1:
	"If one were to publish a leaflet saying, 'We don't want Jews living round here, let's drive them out', it would be caught under a section of our existing legislation that would not catch the same act if the word 'Jews' were replaced by the word 'Muslims'."—[Official Report, 21 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 709.]
	I simply do not believe that to be the case under existing legislation and certainly not under new schedule 1. Those motivations are not theological or doctrinal but racial. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman made that point when he discussed whether certain groups of Semites would be protected if they were Jewish from anti-Semitism—which I would call a form of racial hatred—but not if they were Muslim. I believe that they would be so protected under the current law and that that protection would be made even clearer by new schedule 1. If senior Government Back Benchers do not recognise the key issues at stake in the Bill, the outside world will find it difficult to do so, and there will be many calls for prosecution, which would be inappropriate.
	At column 721, another example of a common misunderstanding, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Ms Thornberry), who spoke often on Second Reading and, indeed, in Committee, said:
	"I shall give the hon. Gentleman an example. A young lady on her way to the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson school is on the bus with her head covered. A man starts shouting at her and abusing her because she is a Muslim. That abuse results in an assault on her by a gang of boys, who know not only that she is a Muslim, but that she is white and has converted, which makes the situation worse. In normal circumstances, that man would get off scot-free."—[Official Report, 21 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 721.]
	The man who was shouting at that girl and abusing her because she was a Muslim would not get off scot-free, because he would have committed a public order offence. If it is not incitement, it is an offence under section 4 or section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and, indeed, it is covered by the law on harassment. Such misunderstanding by hon. Members is fuelling calls for the Bill which, however, is flawed.
	The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby) made a good speech today. I read carefully the speech that he made on Second Reading, in which he argued that because people identify themselves on the basis of their religion, they should have protection from incitement to hatred on the same basis. The offence of incitement to racial hatred, however, is not dependent on the perception of the person against whom hatred is incited. The courts must judge whether the person committing the offence is inciting racial hatred, regardless of whether the person against whom it is committed and who may be a member of a racial group believes that it is because of their religion, gender, race or anything else. I can see the point that the hon. Member was careful to make, but he does not appear to recognise that the current law, particularly if new schedule 1 were accepted, protects people who define themselves according to their religion from incitement to racial hatred.
	The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) was another speaker who was not in the mood to accept interventions on Second Reading. At column 735 he claimed that there is a loophole and that "Freedom", the British National party magazine, has explained it to its readers. He said:
	"An article under the headline, 'Police drop a clanger' said that a supporter who repeatedly displayed a copy of an 'Islam out of Britain' poster in his window was arrested, questioned and charged with 'incitement to racial hatred'. The article continues:
	'The snag for the police, however, is that Muslims are not covered by anti-free speech race law . . . it's legal to say anything you want about Muslims, even far more extreme things'."
	In fact, that person was prosecuted successfully for committing a public order offence, which was deemed religiously aggravated. I understand that his appeal failed. Contrary to the impression that may have been left by the hon. Gentleman, who did not accept interventions, the full story is that the current law covers such situations. The hon. Gentleman continued:
	"We are talking about hatred creating an atmosphere in which Muslim women—British women, some of them white—wearing a hijab or scarf are spat at, insulted, sworn at and even hit."—[Official Report, 21 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 737.]
	Those are already offences under the Public Order Act. To try to pray such outrageous occurrences in aid of the Bill does a disservice to the efforts of the police and prosecutors, who are seeking to use the existing public order offences.
	I shall make a few points in defence of new schedule 1, following the suggestions made by the Minister and others. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) argued that the Lester amendment creates a loophole that will help to tell racists that as long as they "get doctrinal and theological" they will be exempt. Any such mechanism would already be available, and the Lester amendment makes it clear that using religion as a pretext for racial hatred will not create a new loophole. If racists could suddenly become religious bodies without any vestige of literature or any other context that courts must consider when determining the offence of racial hatred and if they pursued hatred against people on the basis that they practised the Muslim faith, it would be incumbent on the Opposition to reconsider whether the legislation were necessary. At the moment, however, racists are racists—they are not theologians.

Evan Harris: I do not agree with any of the points that the hon. Gentleman makes and I do not understand—[Interruption.]—any of it, he says from a sedentary position. I do not understand how he can get any of that from the Lester amendment. There are many in the Muslim community who recognise what it does and are grateful for it. It makes it clear in law that racists cannot hide behind religious words to promulgate racial hatred. It makes it clear that racist Islamophobia is unlawful. Every time we legislate in this area, as the hon. Member for Walsall, North pointed out, there is a balance to be struck between freedom of speech and the need to tackle a social problem.
	We say that if hatred is being incited against people on the basis of their religion, which will clearly not be considered by the court to be incitement to racial hatred using a religious pretext—that rules out all the activities of the BNP and the far right, for a start—and that serious problems are being caused outwith that set of people and those motivations, we will need to re-examine the matter. However, the presumption in the House must be in favour of preserving free speech. Many of the arguments—not all, because some people did not see that there was a problem—around the introduction of the measure were about the balance between free speech and the need to legislate. Simply because 30 or 40 years ago, when the measure was first introduced, some people thought that it went too far—I believe that they were wrong then and that it did not go too far, because there was clear mischief that needed to be dealt with—does not mean that the Government should have carte blanche to introduce any sort of law. We must discuss each measure on its merits and decide whether the need to preserve free speech has been met.
	That deals with the point that was raised in an intervention by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, who urged us and those on his own Front Bench to support a race law that covers only acts likely or liable to lead to other criminal offences. I see his point, and I see the need to balance free speech. The Liberal Democrats believe that the current race hate laws are appropriate for dealing with the problem, and that the freedom of speech which they restrict is not a freedom of speech worth defending. It is not rational to attack people on the basis of their race, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). It is right that we should have philosophical discussions about these matters, but in the end there is a balance. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches believe that the Lester amendment tackles the problem out there, and therefore that it should be supported.
	My next point relates to the argument used by the Minister that because the Attorney-General blocked only seven prosecutions, there is not really a problem. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield and others identified the problem that in this and similar legislation, we are leaving it to the Attorney-General to decide what is and is not acceptable. One must have good reason for allowing that. The problem for people in the artistic and entertainment world is not just that the Attorney-General will allow them to be prosecuted, but that steps will be taken against them by the Crown Prosecution Service in building up the case to put to the Attorney-General and by the police. They may even be picked up for questioning or arrested.
	Complaints will be made against artists and entertainers and, as the Government accept in a letter to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker), who kindly gave me a copy, there will be restrictions on their ability to present their work. In a letter of 7 July from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), although under the letterhead of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), he accepts that
	"if a policeman decided that the circumstances warranted further investigation"—
	there is no Attorney-General in that decision—
	"then it is only right that the police ask those responsible for the conduct in question to discontinue it while an investigation takes place."
	That spells bankruptcy for that production if the producer has to pull it on the basis of complaints. We have seen that we live in a society where there is a propensity for complaints to be made. We saw it in the case of "Jerry Springer—the Opera", and I fear that we will see it again if it goes to regional theatres, and we saw it in the case of "Behtzi". The Minister should recognise that hiding behind the Attorney-General will not give people who wish to pursue their artistic freedom protection from censorship or from being taken off the air and the stage.

Charles Hendry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying those issues and for explaining more of the thinking behind the amendment. Certainly, as an organisation Scientology has gone through serious hoops in terms of ensuring that it has the right to broadcast on television by satisfying the Independent Television Commission that it is not a cult. It is not-for-profit organisation, and that is well recognised.
	The huge flaw in the Bill that my hon. Friend highlighted is the lack of a definition of religion. The Minister has set out certain guidelines that cover that, but it is not clear on which side of the boundary Scientology would fall. It is right and proper that we should have a debate about whether it is a religion, but the lack of clarity makes the Bill unworkable.
	I hope that when my hon. Friend considers the issues raised in this debate, he will understand why the inclusion of Scientology in the list has caused offence and take that into account.

Sammy Wilson: The hon. Gentleman says no, but the terminology is exactly the same. He was worried about the aspect of intent, which will also apply to people who preach in churches and express views about other people's religion. The hon. Member for Walsall, North also said that he wants some safeguards.
	The other reason why the Minister should consider accepting new schedule 1—it is typical that such a sensible and pragmatic approach should be proposed by a Scotsman—is that all it would do is formalise the promises made by himself and by the Secretary of State. On Second Reading, when my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) mentioned the Westminster confession of faith, the Secretary of State said:
	"I think that I can give him the assurance for which he asks. Statements in the Bible, the Book of Common Prayer and other faith books—the Koran for instance—are precisely that. They are not incitements to hatred."—[Official Report, 21 June 2005, Vol. 435, c. 671.]
	At the end of the debate, he promised the House that the Bill would not place restrictions on freedom of speech, stop comedians telling jokes, or prevent people with strong views about religion from expressing their opinions. If that is so, why cannot the explicit terms in new schedule 1 be incorporated in the Bill? Since assurances have already been given in the House, surely new schedule 1 can be included to reassure those who fear that the measure will restrict the freedom of speech of those who want to express their religious views or tell jokes. Why will not the Government make the assurances explicit in the Bill by accepting new schedule 1?
	Leaving the Bill so open ended will lead to bad law and malicious complaints to the police. That applies even with the safeguard of the Attorney-General. The Home Secretary announced the seven stages in any prosecution. However, the five stages before a complaint reaches the Attorney-General are sufficient to cause trauma and difficulties for people against whom malicious complaints have been made and when the police have started an investigation. The one sure way of not having to rely on the Attorney-General and of ensuring that we do not go down the road of people suffering the trauma of an unnecessary police investigation, which may never finish as a prosecution, is to provide explicitly in the Bill for the things that will not be included, as listed in new subsection (3) in new schedule 1, paragraph 2.
	The Under-Secretary should live up to the promise that he made at the beginning. He should listen, engage and accept a compelling argument.

Paul Goggins: The debate has been powerful and wide ranging, not least the contribution of the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). However, although the debate has been wide ranging, four key issues were presented.
	The first key issue is freedom of speech, to which new schedule 1 and new clauses 2 and 4 are relevant. I do not dispute the honourable intentions of those who tabled the amendments. They want to include in the Bill an assurance that legitimate words and actions, in speech or in writing, in jokes or in preaching or proselytising about religious belief are not caught. My candid assessment is that the amendments are either so weak that they add nothing substantial to the measure or they add so much that they create further loopholes.
	Let me give an example. New subsection (3) in paragraph 2 of new schedule 1 provides for four broad exceptions, which extremists could manipulate to avoid prosecution. We already know from evidence that the police have given us that extremists get round the existing race hate legislation by inciting hatred on the ground of religion. That places them outside the law. They know that and they manipulate it accordingly. If we include exceptions, such as those in subsection (3), we will create further loopholes. The Government believe that inciting hatred, on the ground of either race or religion, is wrong and that, whatever the context in which it occurs, it should be covered.
	It is true that we have not defined hatred in the Bill. Several hon. Members made a point about that. We are happy to accept the dictionary definition of intense dislike and enmity. Making an enemy of somebody is a high test but that has not been a problem when considering earlier legislation, for example, the Race Relations Act 1965, the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Public Order Act 1986. They all refer to hatred but none defines it on the face of the legislation.
	It is worth acknowledging the aspect of new clause 2 that acknowledges the gap between the religiously aggravated offences that we have created and the more serious offences of inciting violence or murder. New clause 2 accepts that, if
	"the tone or content of such speech or expression is such as to constitute a justification for violent acts",
	it would be wrong. However, I stress to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that I cannot accept the new clause because it blurs into the serious offence of incitement to violence, which already exists. It would also omit a series of other behaviour, whereby hatred or inciting hatred may be intended. That would not be captured if we accepted new clause 2. I do not dispute that it was an honest effort but the threshold remains too high.

Paul Goggins: I do not know whether a third way exists, but I have said throughout these debates that I continue to listen. Indeed, after we have voted on the Bill tonight, it will go to the other place, which will also have a go at scrutinising it. I would say again to my hon. Friend that the assurances that he seeks are already built in to the Bill in the form of the guarantee of compliance with the European convention on human rights. I certainly do not want to go to the other extreme and include behaviour that would allow extremists a loophole through which they could escape. Even if no third way is to be found, I would say to my hon. Friend—as I said in Committee—that the drawing up of guidance on the way in which the legislation should be interpreted and implemented will be absolutely vital. I want to do that in a way that includes faith communities, people from the arts and others who have expressed concern about the Bill, so that their worries can be taken into account and they can be reassured as we develop the guidance that their fears are misplaced.

Paul Goggins: I do not accept that because I do not accept that there is a direct read-across between race and faith. There may be for Jews and Sikhs—in fact, there is—but there is not for Muslims. A Muslim could be Asian, African or white British.
	The Lester amendment and the view of those who support it are based on the false assumption that the Government are interested only in stopping the BNP from making comments about Muslims that are a proxy for racial comments. Our intention is broader: we want to give the same protection that is given to Jews and Sikhs to all religious groups. We think that that is the right thing to do, which is why we have brought this legislation back for the third time. We think it right for people to be able to live free from fear. We think it important to stop extremists from undermining the tremendous work that has gone on within, across and between faith communities as we have tried to build the community cohesion that we need.
	It is also important for us to prevent the exploitation of those who feel frustrated from time to time and who may be open to the influence of extremists. We have drawn a line in the sand. We think it wrong to incite hatred on the ground of religious belief. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) spoke of 40 years' experience, and of all the doom and gloom and promises of negative impacts that have been heard during that time. None of that has happened; we have had very successful legislation, and I think that the same will be true of this Bill.

Dominic Grieve: I regret that the Minister did not succumb a little to the temptation that new clause 2 offered. He said some reasonably kind things about it—for example, that it was an honest attempt to try to reconcile a serious difference of view. The clause was certainly put forward in that spirit. I make no pretence to it being perfect in the way it is drafted, but it went a long way towards reflecting some of the concerns expressed on his own Benches about the Bill by seeking to centre on a definition of the difference between what constitutes hatred and the degree to which it must go.
	I believe that a court and a jury would have little difficulty in identifying words that were tantamount to an encouragement to violent acts. It is not a difficult concept for people to grasp—the difference between ferocious criticism and words that imply that people should feel free to use violence against others. I say to the Minister, even at this late stage, that he might like to consider the issue carefully and we may be able to return to it.
	Although I put forward the new clause in that spirit, I am not minded to press it to a vote because there is a clear difference between some hon. Members and others about whether the entire Bill and its scope is desirable or whether it can be narrowed down solely to the issue of what is called the Lord Lester amendment, in terms of defining and protecting those whose religion is attacked as a pretext for an attack on their race and ethnic identity. That is my preferred course of action. As I see that the amendment enjoys support from all sides of the House, I will seek to withdraw the new clause in the belief that the Liberal Democrats will seek a vote on amendment No. 1.
	This has been a fascinating and wide-ranging debate, but the Minister must be aware of the disquiet expressed from both sides of the House about the way in which the Bill will work in practice. Unless the Government come up with a constructive solution to the problem, the Bill, however well-intentioned, will end up as the source of polemical argument and will never see the statute book at all, or at least not for a long time. I cannot believe that that is a desirable state of affairs.
	There must be a way through the problem, but the Government show no sign of responding to it. The basic reason for that is that they have been hoisted on the petard of their own promises. They have made a promise of equality between Jews and Sikhs and other religious groups that is completely fictitious for two reasons. First, it is a fiction because the equality in fact already exists and would be enshrined in law if Lord Lester's amendment were to be accepted. Also, the protection currently enjoyed by Jews and Sikhs is on the basis of their racial identity and not on their religion.
	Secondly, it is fictitious because, in moving to create an offence of religious hatred, the Government are seeking to marry it in identical terms to racial hatred when the difference between racial hatred and religious hatred is so palpably plain that it makes a nonsense of the entire legislation.
	I shall withdraw new clause 2 and support those who are seeking to put amendment No. 1 to the vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Dominic Grieve: I join the Minister wholeheartedly in thanking all those who have participated in the consideration of the Bill. As always, it has been a pleasure to debate the matter with him. He is right: for the first time in my recollection, we can say that a Bill has had adequate scrutiny in the House. That is a rare event, but as I mentioned in Committee, it is certainly to the credit of the Whips, especially the Government Whips and, I suspect, of the Minister that the opportunity was made available to us.
	I am also grateful to the Minister for the fact that we have secured an amendment to the Bill. It may only be one amendment, but it certainly commended itself to me, and I am delighted therefore that the Government have taken it on board. Having said that, I fear that the Bill remains, despite that single improvement, seriously and catastrophically flawed. It seeks to do something that is in itself controversial, and I am afraid that it does so rather badly.
	Let us start with the controversial element. It is, as the Minister has acknowledged, a fettering of the freedom of speech and expression, but he and the Government say that that is necessary and that they have sought to draft the measure sufficiently tightly that freedom of speech will not be unduly restricted. Yet there are fundamental flaws in the Bill's presentation because, as has been acknowledged in Committee and, indeed, on Report, it is in fact extremely widely drafted and is dependent on a selective interpretation by those who may or not bring prosecutions in determining whom should be penalised for transgressing it. That is a very bad way to start a legislative process.
	I am afraid that the Bill is underpinned by the fact that it comes on the back of series of promises that the Government have made to various groups—often, I fear, raising expectations that will never be fulfilled—in trying to create some kind of equal playing field between religious and racial hatred, and some of the fundamental difficulties with the legislation stem from that. If the Government had sought to present a Bill to the House that centred on religious hatred as a separate issue, I have a feeling that, even though there might have been very serious disagreements and, indeed, a great deal of debate, we might well have been able to focus on some of the key objectives that we have, in fact, been unable to achieve.
	In presenting various amendments—particularly new clause 2 and, indeed, new clause 4, presented by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright)—we seem to have come close, as the Minister identified, to considering some of the key things that need to be protected, as well as the mischief that were are trying to prevent. The Bill, sadly, achieves none of those things. Unless it is radically improved in another place, I fear that it will become a classic example of good intentions leading us down a dangerous road.
	Mention was made during the debates on Report—in the comments of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)—that we should derive comfort from the legislation on race relations and racial hatred because it was suggested when it was passed that it was very controversial. I was mindful of his comments. Indeed, I recollect that, although I was very young at the time, my late father expressed as a lawyer some disquiet about the legislation. It is precisely because I think that I can see where his disquiet may have been misplaced that I have certainly attempted to consider the Bill with the idea in mind of whether I could say in 20 years' time that I was mistaken. However, the profound difference between a religious belief and a racial identity inclines me to the view that I am not mistaken at all in taking the attitude that this legislation will, in fact, make no contribution to improving community relations in this country.
	The Minister quoted my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and I agree with everything that he said. There is a language of hatred and it needs to be fought, but the best way to fight it is by the public expression of views that those who hate others on matters where they should not do so are wrong. The Government's attempt to introduce what is in effect a mechanistic system of what is and what is not appropriate, far from helping the situation, I believe, will make it worse. It is for those reasons that, although I appreciate the good intentions behind the Government's ideas, yet again, the Opposition are compelled to say that we cannot support the Bill on Third Reading. The improvements made to it are slight; the mischief that remains as a result of it is great.
	If the Government really want to tackle this issue, they must get away from the promises made to various people of an equal playing field, accept that religion and race are different, start to look at the real nature of the problem and try to come up with some constructive solutions. We can all agree that it is undesirable that people should preach violence or words that lead to violence, but what the Bill will achieve is the prevention of the perfectly lawful expression of differences of view, which is the very foundation on which our democracy has been based.

Ann Cryer: I have just voted in the Aye Lobby, so I feel that I owe it to my colleagues and the Minister to explain my background for doing so. I shall probably abstain on Third Reading.
	The strength of our society lies with its tolerance, understanding and diversity. That has emerged over centuries, and although the overwhelming majority of people enjoy the benefits that it brings, there are those, for their own odious and self-interested motives, who want to take advantage of the system and abuse it. An inevitable defect of decency and tolerance is allowing those who do not share our views or values to speak out and have their say too, however unpleasant and unwelcome that is.
	In May, I was returned in Keighley and Ilkley following a bitter, dreadful fight where hope triumphed over hate. Perhaps the most odious of characters, the chairman of the British National party, was soundly defeated into last place. With the defeat of extremism comes, I believe, a great responsibility to understand and address the reasons why it came to my constituency and to ensure that it never returns. One of the main reasons was the undercurrent of the feeling of unfairness and inequality that was able to take root. It is perceived that many minority groups are viewed differently and treated more leniently by the law as a result of their minority status. In essence, protection is offered from the full weight of the law for the fear of being branded a racist. That perception has crippled political, social and economic development in cities such as Bradford. Lord Ouseley, whose report was commissioned prior to the Bradford riots in 2001, spoke out about the fear of debate in Bradford and the need to have open and frank discussions. Some four years later, we are no further forward. The manifestation of the BNP in Bradford and Keighley is a result of that failure.
	I am not suggesting for one minute that protection under the law should not be offered to those who are in danger of persecution or violence. However, I am simply not convinced that well intentioned legislation that emphasises differences and identifies segregation provides that protection. It might, in reality, have the reverse effect.
	In a rich society such as ours in which our diversity should be celebrated and encouraged, rather than concentrating on what makes us different, perhaps we should look more at what unites us: our humanity, social conscience, willingness to help others and steadfast faith in democracy, equality and achievement. Surely the celebration of our common values and beliefs must be the way forward, thus shifting away from an attempt to isolate or segregate any specific community or religion. That would be far more successful at encouraging integration, which is what I look forward to and work for.
	Protection comes in many forms: the weight of criminal justice—which if applied is more than sufficient—argument, and education. All those offer powerful solutions. If I am described as an infidel because of my beliefs, do we want the accuser to be prosecuted, or do we want to engage with that perverse view and demonstrate how erroneous it is? One of the fundamental principles of any religious belief must be tolerance, so allowing prosecution is a dangerous path to tread.
	How was the BNP defeated in Keighley and Ilkley? It was achieved not by prosecution, but by reasonable argument. Its members were exposed as liars and the party was shown to be the politically bankrupt group that it truly is. Opposition to the BNP was based on a broad coalition of trade unions, churches, mosques, voluntary groups and businesses—indeed, all the decent people of Keighley and Ilkley. The sheer weight of argument, concentrating on those issues that unite us, irrespective of colour, religion, age and sex, for example, expose extremism for what it is. Take away the fear from debate, and our common interests—humanity, decency, tolerance and equality—are allowed to shine through. Restrictions, however well intentioned, stifle that debate. How can we ever expect to rid our society of the horrors of honour killings if we are limited by those—whose perverse understanding of their religion believe that it is their entitlement—may threaten prosecution?
	Does the Bill take us in the wrong direction? Perhaps we should be looking in the opposite direction and remove the blasphemy laws from the statute book so that we are all of equal status. I cherish the diversity in my constituency and throughout the country. I am yet more determined to defeat extremism from wherever it originates. I want to have a constituency, and a country, that is comfortable with itself and its neighbours. That is my ambition. I am not convinced that legislation that encourages further segregation, however, well intentioned, will provide the protections that it aims to deliver.

Alistair Carmichael: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer). I commend her on what I thought was a remarkably thoughtful and major contribution. I welcome her to the debate on the Bill.
	Consideration of the Bill in Committee was a pleasure, principally because of the good humoured way in which the Minister handled the proceedings. It is often said that the Government are leading us into a nanny state. I suspect that there may be some truth in that, and I suspect also that we have in the Minister a new Labour Mary Poppins. He is the man who provides the spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down. However, what he has provided us with in the Bill remains a pretty unpalatable medicine. It remains a medicine that is in search of an ill to cure.
	As I understood the Minister on Report, he seems to be telling us that the Government are bringing forward this legislation and insisting on it because they have a wish to address a perceived anomaly in the treatment of Jews and Sikhs under existing legislation, and other religious groups. At the same time, he accepted that the nature of that cover was such that other groups were already covered to the same extent by existing legislation. Perhaps it was not intellectually the Minister's finest hour, if I might put it like that.
	An interesting feature of the Minister's speech was his offer to provide draft guidance on good practice that would be used to implement the Bill's provisions. I welcome that. Such guidance will be useful. However, I wonder why we are hearing about guidance at this stage. What was the rush in introducing the Bill? Why have we had Second Reading, consideration in Committee followed by consideration on Report in such a short compass when we are in an 18-month Session? If the guidance is to be made available, surely it should have been provided to us at a time when we could have made proper use of it. The guidance might well have answered many of the objections that have been raised. We do not know because the refusal to publish it so far means that, effectively, the Government are asking us to buy a pig in a poke.
	I am embarrassed that we are sending forward a Bill that is so bad even after we have spent so much time on it. I accept what the Minister says that whatever faults there have been in the Government's approach to this proposed legislation, lack of time has not been one of them. I suggest, however, that the Bill is ill-conceived in its thinking. It will be dangerous in its execution and I am confident that we have not seen the last of it.
	We, the elected House, should not be relying on the other place to give the Bill the sort of scrutiny and the sort of amendment that it so clearly requires. Come the vote on Third Reading, Liberal Democrat Members will be voting against it.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Bob Laxton: In the last Parliament, I was an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on hepatology, which produced a report on hepatitis C in March of this year. My hon. Friend the Minister will have had a copy. Yes, it was hard hitting; it was hard hitting because it deserved to be.
	The action taken so far by the Government is failing and will continue to fail those who carry the disease, fail the standards of care that we have come to expect of the welfare state after the second world war and fail to head off a largely preventable disease load described authoritatively by a former US Surgeon-General as a "timebomb" until they recognise that this is a serious threat to public health that has to be prioritised.
	Colleagues will not be surprised to learn that I do not often read The Sun, but last week its health writer Jane Symons did an interesting piece that reflected the fact that anyone can catch hepatitis C, including Pamela Anderson from "Baywatch", who caught it sharing her husband's tattoo needle. There are a number of ways hepatitis C is transmitted—from sharing needles to blood transfusions that took place before 1991 and sharing razors or toothbrushes with someone who has the virus.
	There are estimated to be between 200,000 and 500,000 people who are HCV positive in the UK, but nobody knows exactly how many, although the so-called "Action Plan on Hepatitis C" published in 2004 promised, in the future tense, to develop modelling techniques to assess future numbers of patients requiring treatment. Perhaps my hon. Friend could let me know how far we have come since then on defining numerical parameters of the disease.We know that the great majority of those carrying the infection—80 to 90 per cent. of the total—do not know that they are incubating the disease and are storing up future problems for themselves and for society.
	The Government's overall approach could be described—charitably, in my view—as "watch and wait". Actually, it is more like wait, because with 90 per cent. of infections undiagnosed, watch is hardly applicable. Besides, there are no plans for any of the proactive screening programmes that are recommended in the report. With the best will in the world, how can we expect to identify the HCV-positive population otherwise? Perhaps the Government have targets to identify that population. If so, let us hear them today to assess how ambitious and realistic they are and to measure future progress against them.
	Watch and wait also fails on two other counts. First, there is increasing evidence from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and from the European Association for the Study of the Liver that the earlier and younger that patients are treated—even if they have perfectly normal liver enzyme levels—the more likely we are to achieve a sustained virological response indicative of a cure. Effective treatments involving ribavirin and pegylated interferon are available and can cure some 60 per cent. of the patients who take them.
	Secondly, while watch and wait saves expenditure on cures in the short term, it costs so much more in the long term. Eventually, without treatment, 20 to 50 per cent. of HCV-positive people will develop very unpleasant liver disease—blighting and shortening their lives and placing an extremely heavy burden on the NHS as the number of people with this infectious and transmissible condition grows. I hope that the Treasury has no hand in this short-termism.
	No doubt the Minister has been studying our report, which makes 13 recommendations. They would bear repetition in a longer debate, but it would be helpful to know now whether the Government are minded to accept any of those recommendations. My hon. Friend may find it more convenient to write to me at length with her evaluation of the points made. There are, however, two areas that I would particularly like to stress.
	First, I was disappointed by the skimpy, one-page chapter in the hepatitis C action plan, which boldly set the question, "International Outlook: How do we Compare?" It proceeded not to answer that question. Basically, this underwhelming chapter tells us something of the incidence of the disease in other countries but nothing—absolutely nothing—about the lessons that we can learn from their successes and failures.
	For instance, in France, where the challenge and burden of disease is even greater, 50 per cent. of the HCV-positive population has been identified and a target of 85 per cent. identification set. Where are the targets for England? Closer to home, it is quite clear that the Scots have addressed this issue with more seriousness and speed than we have in England. Some 36 per cent. of the HCV-positive population have been identified—approximately double the 19 per cent. claimed as diagnosed in England in the action plan. I should say that that depends on the Government's low estimate of 200,000 HCV-positive people being correct. All the specialist hepatologists that we spoke to felt that the number was closer to the top of the range—500,000. In that case, the proportion diagnosed in England falls to something like 8 per cent.
	It is also clear that Scottish data collection and thinking on screening is in advance of the position in England. Health Protection Scotland is producing an annual report on its Hepatitis C action plan. Where is the English equivalent? Is it not time that we in England set the old exam question of compare and contrast so that officials absorb and apply the lessons from elsewhere?
	I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in congratulating the Hepatitis C Trust, which has listened to the recommendation of the report and commissioned a comparison study between what is happening here and what has been done in France, Germany, Italy and Spain. Surely, in such an important area of public health, the Government should be working in partnership with the voluntary sector and taking advantage of its expert knowledge and networks to provide a clear picture of how other countries are dealing with the condition. The compact between the Government and the voluntary sector commits the Department of Health to forge long-term strategic partnerships with the sector and involve it in the planning and delivery of treatment and services. However, in this case it appears that the Department is happy to leave the Hepatitis C Trust to it.
	Secondly, I am convinced that we are not adequately addressing the challenge of the disease in UK prisons. Prisons are certainly reservoirs, if not hotbeds, of the disease. I have written to the Minister already about that to give her some advance warning of the matter. A study of a Scottish prison in the American Journal of Epidemiology showed a rising incidence of hepatitis C in inmate cohorts the longer they remain in jail. The most likely explanation for that is injecting in prison. The Scottish study found an initial incidence of 16 per cent. infection among inmates in 1999–2000. That is considerably higher than the percentage quoted to me from some now rather aged statistics of 1997–98, which was 9 per cent. among adult men in English prisons. We appear to have a significant proportion of male prisoners in the UK who are HCV positive, with prisoners more likely to emerge HCV positive than when they went in, with the most likely cause of the rising incidence being injected drug use.
	The Minister will no doubt say that responsibility is delegated and that patient care trusts bear responsibility for the treatment of prisoners. The reality is that the prison population is transient and inmates can be moved from one end of the country to the other with little or no warning. Unfortunately, the response time for securing treatment are seldom as swift, resulting in halved treatment regimes for some and an absence of treatment for others. It is shocking that prisoners, who are in society's care, should appear to be more likely to emerge from prison with hepatitis C than when they went in and that effective and available methods of preventing that are not being deployed. Action is needed to ensure that the punishment for prisoners with hepatitis C is not an irreparably damaged liver.
	Prisoners are not routinely screened for hepatitis C. They should be, because they are a clearly identifiable high-risk population that would be easy to target. We are missing a significant opportunity to address a problem, which will only grow to be far more damaging, by effectively ignoring it. As a former senior medical officer, Dr. S. Hopkins wrote in The Daily Telegraph on 24 August 2004:
	"The crisis is no longer in waiting. It is here now, fermented in prisons and released in a continuous stream into the general population."
	It is a crisis that should be addressed rather than ignored.
	I believe that the Government should be doing more, particularly on public education. Hepatitis C is preventable, but unlike HIV/AIDS it is not a virus that many people know much about. Because of the common absence of symptoms, many people tend to be unaware that they have a hepatitis C infection until some time afterwards. For instance, 30 per cent. of people diagnosed with hepatitis C do not display any symptoms and are often unsure of where they caught the virus. A public education programme or campaign should focus on how hepatitis C is caught and, for anyone who already has the virus, how to avoid transmitting it. General practitioners should also be given more support in the treatment of viral hepatitis, perhaps as an enhanced service. A small pilot with specially trained GPs supported by a helpline and a clear set of referral guidelines would be useful.
	Prevention is better than cure, and that certainly applies to hepatitis C. Allowing the problem to fester only stores up bigger shocks for the future. Different people react differently to hepatitis C. The lucky ones will suffer from chronic fatigue and not have the ability to live their day to day lives as fully as they would like. The unlucky will die of liver disease.
	I previously presented a debate on childhood anaemia, a condition that has long-lasting problems in adulthood if left untreated. Hepatitis C is the same. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the points that I have made and very much look forward to her response.

Caroline Flint: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) on his success in obtaining this debate. I commend him for his work as the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary hepatology group, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on his work as chair of the group.
	Despite what my hon. Friend has said this evening, I hope that I will be able to assure him that the Government recognise the importance of hepatitis C as a public health issue, both globally and nationally. The Hepatitis C Trust and others in the voluntary sector will continue to lobby Government, because that is their function, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we have good working relationships with the trust and other voluntary sector organisations and, indeed, we provide grant funding for some of their activities. Officials also have regular contact with the trust and have sought to involve it in the awareness campaign. The trust will no doubt continue to press for more, as that is part of their remit.
	We are fortunate to have, but not for one minute complacent about, a relatively low prevalence of hepatitis C compared with other developed countries and many other parts of the world. Even so, hepatitis C represents a major challenge in terms of preventing new infections, reducing the level of undiagnosed infections and ensuring that patients with the disease get the care that they need.
	My hon. Friend mentioned the chief medical officer's work to try to highlight the issue in the health community through his infectious disease strategy, "Getting Ahead of the Curve". Demonstrating that the condition was an infectious disease problem required intensified action. Subsequently, in 2002, we published the hepatitis C strategy for England for consultation, with proposals to improve prevention, diagnosis and treatment. Last year, we followed that up with a hepatitis C action plan for England.
	I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Southend, West said this evening. I shall not be able to answer every point, but I am open to meeting representatives of the all-party group to go through its report and recommendations and to discuss the issues further. I hope that we can offer some reassurance that we have begun work in several fields. The four key areas are surveillance and research, increasing awareness and detecting undiagnosed infections, high-quality services for people with hepatitis C and prevention.
	Raising awareness is an essential part of the campaign and in July 2004, after we launched the action plan, we sent all general practitioners and practice nurses in England a comprehensive hepatitis C information pack for health care professionals. We also sent it to a range of other relevant health professionals because, unfortunately, the knowledge base among those at the front line of our services was quite low.
	We also established a new hepatitis C awareness website for health care professionals and the public: www.hepc.nhs.uk. These are still early days, but I am pleased that use of the website is growing; currently, there are about 4,500 visits per month, with a 56 per cent. increase in June 2005 compared with the previous month. That is to be welcomed.
	We have supplemented those resources with features in a range of health care journals for professionals and through exhibition stands at conferences. The public awareness campaign for hepatitis C began last December with the introduction of the new NHS hepatitis C telephone information line, which provides confidential information and advice through personal communication and will complement the website and the more general service offered by NHS Direct.

Caroline Flint: I am sure that there is, but I will check. In my former position at the Home Office, I had responsibility for the national drugs strategy and it is important that such links be recognised. Injecting drug users are a vulnerable group, which is why the strategy refers to drug agency teams and multi-agency working. I hope that will include prisons to ensure that effective work is done. As primary care trusts will have a greater role in prison health, they will be looking into those points. As Members will be aware, new legislation introduces drug testing on charge and arrest and mandatory drug assessments, so we shall be addressing hepatitis C and other issues with such people even before they get to court. Home Office officials have assured us that that is part of the package of support given to people whose use of drugs leads to their offending behaviour. I have three prisons in my constituency, and I am aware that the issue is important; the risks are high for people in prison, especially from the shared use of needles.
	We are closely monitoring usage of the telephone helpline. In March, for example, there were 242 calls. About six in 10 callers were women and only four in 10 were male, which is interesting given the prevalence of hepatitis C. About eight in 10 callers were calling for themselves, a family member or friend. More than four in 10 calls were for information and advice about the different ways in which hepatitis C can be spread and nearly three in 10 calls were about hepatitis C testing. More than half the callers were aged between 26 and 55. More than one fifth of calls resulted in a referral to another agency—a general practitioner or a specialist voluntary organisation—so that people could take up the support they needed. So I hope that that gives an indication of some of the work that we are doing through the awareness campaign to provide practical access to advice for those people who seek it.
	Another aspect and a novel activity in the public awareness campaign is the open-air exhibition of photographs of people with hepatitis C taken by a professional photographer who herself has been successfully treated for hepatitis C. The first exhibition took place in Leicester Square in March and has recently begun to tour regional cities, starting in Nottingham last week. The exhibition provides a helpful focus to say that these are people like us and to find another way to reach a wider community in city centres. That approach involves the strategic health authority, primary care trust and others, so where the exhibition takes place, the local health services are geared up to respond to the demand for services or information.
	Local and regional media are also involved, and the combination of those three factors has given a tangible sense of focus to the photographic exhibition campaign. We are keeping an eye on the nature and scale of that campaign and how it has worked, as well as anything else that we may be doing. We are not waiting to the end of the programme to decide what works and what does not; we are trying to make assessments as we go along to see what is working. Obviously, we have to look at what is not working as well.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North mentioned improving surveillance of hepatitis C, and I agree that it is important to improve the evidence base as a way to measure progress. We have funded the Health Protection Agency, which is responsible for the national surveillance of hepatitis C, to carry out several projects so that we can get better estimates, identify any trends and model the possible future disease burden to help in the planning of services. For example, the HPA is running a project to improve the data collected when people are tested for hepatitis C, including clinical and risk factor information.
	Of local interest to my hon. Friend will be the Trent cohort study of patients infected with hepatitis C, which is co-ordinated by Nottingham university. That study, which the Department is also funding, is investigating the natural history of hepatitis, trends of referral in the region and the effect of antiviral drug therapy on the long-term outcome of hepatitis C-related liver disease. Derby city hospital is participating in that study.
	My hon. Friend asked whether, as is proposed by the Scottish Executive, there should be a national database in England to collect information. We will consider the benefits and feasibility of establishing such a database in England when the output of the Scottish system becomes available next year. However, we must judge that against the Trent work to find out what added benefits we would achieve by extending the database even further.
	Injecting drug users are an important target group, as they are at greatest risk of hepatitis C. We provided the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse with £1 million for local projects to increase the hepatitis C testing of injected drug users and related activities. About 45 local projects were funded, including one by the Derbyshire drug and alcohol action team to develop a new hepatitis C service for drug users in north Derbyshire. Those projects should help forge local partnerships and, we hope, drive up good practice and prevention. We are also funding the NTA to carry out a national audit of needle exchange schemes—one of the actions in the hepatitis C action plan for England. The drug interventions programme, as I said, gives us another opportunity to capture a group of people for whom hepatitis C is a real possibility and certainly to screen and test them and get them appropriate treatment for the future.

Caroline Flint: I am afraid that I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman on that issue. I cannot recall whether or not I have dealt with that letter. I understand that issues about treatment are important and PCTs must look at them in considering how they commission treatment, but I would prefer to write to him in detail about that, rather than dealing with it this evening.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North asked about developing modelling techniques to help to project the numbers of patients. The Trent study will help us to do that and the Department of Health has also funded the Health Protection Agency to allow it to work with the Medical Research Council's biostatistics unit to provide estimates of the future burden of hepatitis C-related liver disease. The results from that ongoing study will be submitted to a peer review journal for publication later this year. Again, such information helps not only Ministers, but hon. Members, because they can raise issues with their PCTs and others about the cost-benefits of work in the area and the way in which larger future costs to the health service can be prevented in the future. The outcome will thus be interesting.
	The hon. Member for Southend, West raised a point about targeted awareness. We have plans to implement that, especially for minority ethnic communities. That will start later this year and will form an important part of what we should do. There should not necessarily be a one-size-fits-all approach to campaigning. We must determine how to reach different groups and also decide what each group's concerns might be, because they may vary from one group to another.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North asked about proactive screening. We have published information and guidance for health professionals and the public that highlights those who are thought to be at risk of hepatitis C infection and should thus consider being tested, or be offered testing. That forms part of the awareness campaign. There is a continuing programme to raise awareness of hepatitis C among the public and those at risk. We hope that the awareness website, the telephone service and the regional road shows and photographic exhibitions will all contribute to that.
	The prospects for people diagnosed with hepatitis C have improved markedly over the past decade. Antiviral drug therapy has been recommended by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and has good success rates. NICE is currently considering the case for treating patients with mild hepatitis C in the light of research funded by the Department. Further guidance on that is expected next year, which is why it is important to diagnose people with hepatitis C.
	We recognise the importance of hepatitis C as a public health issue. Alongside unprecedented increases in NHS funding, we have provided central support for specific aspects of the implementation of the hepatitis C action plan for England. We have asked strategic health authorities to ensure that local arrangements are in place to provide appropriate services, which will involve collaboration with their primary care trust, clinicians and agencies such as the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse, the Health Protection Agency and voluntary sector organisations—
	The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at thirteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.